On Jun 25, 2024 5:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Thomas Goirand writes:
> > On 6/25/24 11:56, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > It's 3rd party in the sense that the person uploading isn't generating
> > or even signing the source package.
>
> The 1s
On 6/25/24 11:56, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
On 25.06.24 10:11, Thomas Goirand wrote:
But to the contrary of what you're saying, that *is not* the problem.
The problem is that you're proposing to sign something, and upload
something else, signed by 3rd party CI that you're willing
ed request to a REST API, it wouldn't be very different from signing
a tag in a random Git repository.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
d would
use it myself. But I very much dislike the implementation you're
proposing, which is basically, that we need to blindly trust a signed
tag in Git + Salsa CI, and nothing else. This is broken in so many ways.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
T buy into this "signing a git tag makes more sense". I
understand it is easier to implement. But from the Debian perspective, that is
simply wrong.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
quot;
tool. With the correct local tooling, that's not such a big deal, and it
has been demonstrated that it works (watch again the lightning talk from
Debconf Kosovo...). I really don't understand why you still believe it
would be more complicated from the contributor point of view once the
tooling are available.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
and tag2upload perform.
How is this a problem? Are you doing packaging on a 8MHz computer? :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
e check fails.
Are you hereby volunteering for such (dak and other) work? Plus the DM ACL
thingy? Plus things you didn't think of? If not you, then who? Do we have
patches available or at least a known team of volunteers?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
hing to our infrastructure. Added bemefit: packages must be
reproducible to support it.
The point it isn't solving: contributors still need to learn how to build
*source* packages locally. Is this a problem ? I don't think so: we are talking
about contributing to packaging anyways. Isn't this the bare minimum knowledge
to expect ?
Thomas
On 6/15/24 11:16, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 11:44:04PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
1. Nobody really opposes what is being proposed.
I oppose to vote to implement a design proposal. I also oppose to force
certain work on volunteers.
+1
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
lot ~/.gbp.conf and ~/.sbuildrc to make it
useful, plus the setup of schroot/sbuild that's less than trivial). So
we're having to fix this problem, but it's IMO orthogonal to the
push2upload discussion.
So, to sum-up: I'm not convinced by the points you're mentioning.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 6/13/24 10:21, Sean Whitton wrote:
Hello,
On Thu 13 Jun 2024 at 08:23am +02, Thomas Goirand wrote:
One thing I really dislike, is having a single gpg key to upoload them all. I
very much preferred the design that Didier explained during Debconf Kosovo,
where the .changes signature is
re the .changes signature is uploaded together with
the tagged commit.
Your thoughts?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: The thread is huge, I have no time to read it all, sorry if someone
else also raised the same concern.
oo much in the topic.
Adding workload to DSA isn't the plan. I also have other persons that
raised their hands as volunteers. Let's discuss this after the vote ! :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 3/27/24 11:25, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
Hi,
Thomas Goirand wrote on 27/03/2024 at 00:24:30+0100:
Hi,
As you know, there's a large amount of money sleeping in SPI account
for Debian. Do you have ideas on how to spend it?
Would you be ok spending 100k USD on buying hardware for
oud providers to have faster shared
runners? It wouldn't be hard to hook them.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: To other DDs reading: feel free to voice your opinion too.
getting divided on controversial topics?
Thomas Koch
(I hope it's not violating rules to pre-post a question before the campaign
period?)
theoretically possible to
fight its wording in each state. Seen the other way around: it's
possible that the implementation as a law in each country is worse than
then directive itself, we must pay attention to it (it's probably even
more difficult for us this way, as there will be 27 implementations to
take care of).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
big corp and their
lobbying power, and we need to use stronger words.
In the absence of something better, I'll still vote for the above...
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
ngly protest. Hopefully
other communities will also protest against this law.
Oh, by the way... correcting myself: technically, there's no such thing
as a "EU law", and we're being played like every time (to make us
believe we're still in a democratic world): each country *must* (yeah,
no choice...) make its own law out of this Directive.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
t is in
my mind inconsistent with our mailing list rules.
I find all of this thread also disrupting, off-topic, and very annoying.
Thomas, if you feel like you need to discuss your case in public *again*
(which IMO, you shouldn't do at all...), could you please at least avoid
hijacking the DP
> Soren Stoutner hat am 15.03.2023 19:07 EET geschrieben:
>
> I would be interested in hearing the details of what happened.
There you go:
https://blog.koch.ro/posts/2023-03-15-debian-exclusion.html
(public?) call with me and maybe also people from the
project (e.g. community team)?
There have been conflicts in the last years that separated even families.
Also the Debian project has been affected. These conflicts should be healed.
All the best, Thomas Koch
On 9/14/22 17:00, Holger Levsen wrote:
hi,
I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like
proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image.
Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable
Debian installer images, for those cases were some included non-free
stu
not agree that these Dell servers do not need firmware though. When
equipped with QLogic, Intel or Broadcom NICs, you *must* install the
non-free firmware packages, as I wrote earlier (and the CPU microcode
updates too...).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
crashing Broadcom
boards at all costs).
Also, from the security point of view, and when running VMs on a public
cloud, it's not reasonable to avoid updating the microcode for CPUs.
Note: we don't use d-i for setting-up servers.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
s/
[4] https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/dists/buildd-unstable
[5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/04/msg00214.html
Seconded.
Ansgar
Seconded.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
to make such a statement and vote against
your above text.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
[1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002
like not knowing the implementation details, and the fact we
voted only on one property of the vote).
Please do not make it even more painful asking for another vote (because
you do not like the outcome).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
e all DDs are
invited to work on accessibility issues? I'm not volunteering for
organizing such a day, just giving the idea for the accessibility team
to pick-up... I'd volunteer a day per year, if I'm given a list of tasks
I can act on!
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
by Debian standards, is not a long time.
I agree. With the current proposal, I would vote "further discussion".
Thomas
m unsure about what Holger has in mind, but for me, yes, I do want to
know about the full details of implementation to make sure we have 4-,
5- and 6-, which we currently have with a fully public voting system.
Just voting on "I want my vote to be secret" without having any
information
don't see why I would want to hide my opinion from the other DDs.
Going this path, I don't think we would need to vote on it. Please, if
possible, avoid too much voting if we have other ways to fix the issue:
this is exhausting everyone.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Wouter Verhelst schrieb:
> In that case, the problem is that the links to the tally sheet still
> point to the dummy sheet; if you go to the vote's page, then click on
> the "statistics" link, and next on the "tally sheet" one, you get the
> dummy tally sheet.
I don't (neither yesterday nor today
x27;m wondering if there is anything we can do to motivate more
people to vote.
It's understandable that there is no motivation to choose between two very
long and complicated (and similar but maybe not?) changes.
Yeah. The wording is kind of hard (and boring) to read.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
ars, if not decades, for the rename to
ever be effective (if the person(s) in charge decide(s) it...).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 11/4/21 8:14 PM, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> The hardest part may very well be changing all the CNAME/A
> records[1][2]
Thanks for volunteering! :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
rees.
Also, did you engage with the FTP master team at least, before writing
this message? That would be appropriate, IMO.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Please do not take it the wrong way: saying something is silly is
not the same as calling someone silly... I do respect Felix (and
everyone else), and in this instance as well.
that needs to be
fixed, as I would hate myself to browse a local doc and having my web
browser access remote content when I don't expect it.
I don't think a GR is appropriate here, at least not before discussing
this with other DDs (maybe in debian-devel) for long enough. I also
believe that this isn't a topic that deserves so much of our DD time.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
leeway for that".
I hope it's more clear like this, and it doesn't hurt anyone this time.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
make a case that we should be indulgent with RMS
because he's autistic? If that is your intention, you're achieving the
exact opposite thing with your message...
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
now my opinion. I
would understand if anyone fears harassment after the vote if it is
disclosed, and that would be a good reason, but I do not share the view
that there's a high risk for this to happen. This vote is a lot less
important than many in these threads think.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
d be ejected from the
free software movement in general"?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
M dB wrote:
> Are we discussing a handful of people leaving
> volunteer positions? Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No.
[...]
> Nobody who wants rms off the FSF board is trying to destroy
> his life
I may be wrong, but it looks like Richard Stallman has dedicated his
life (or at least
On 3/24/21 11:10 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> [...]
> sexual preference [...]
s/sexual preference/sexual orientation/
Someone just pointed out to me that "sexual preference" may be
considered offensive. That's not my intention: I simply copied the
wording of Bart without eno
expressing your
opinion about the issue. This doesn't match the title of your message.
FWIW, I'm in the opinion Debian shouldn't do anything, and that all of
this is just distractions. We have Bullseye to release...
> I suspect most people already have their minds made up.
Looks like you do! :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
al is disgusting.
And by getting this as a GR, it feels like promoting the cancel culture
in Debian. :/
Can't you just express your opinion by yourself, by signing the letter?
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
", because it's also not addressing what a DPL role is:
- appointing teams
- representing Debian (interviews, medias, etc...)
- managing funds
- resolving conflicts
Sruthi, any comment? Please let me know where I'm wrong, as it feels
like you probably do not agree with me.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand
gregor herrmann schrieb:
> I also know from personal experience in (non-software) volunteer
> organizations, and a friend of mine has written her diploma thesis on
> this topic researching yet another NGO, that a setup with a volunteer
> board/committee/chairperson/president and employed
> executi
, or if
you nominated yourself for the DPL election, and voiced your intend to
make a GR about creating a foundation (but not make it the only topic of
your platform).
Anyway, thanks for this topic again, and I really hope you make the
foundation thing happen, being the DPL or not. :)
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 12/28/19 5:52 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:08:44PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> So, this means there's 101 DDs that don't have a GPG key in the keyring?
>> Wow, that's a big amount. Do we have an idea of how long these DDs are
>&g
On 12/27/19 10:08 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 12/27/19 11:15 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> The script thinks it knows the eligible voters, but it doesn't.
>> The top of the graph is now just above 900, because devotee thinks
>> there are 909 DDs. 909 is the amount
keyring. But the real number is
> 1011, so I actually need to fix the numbers after the vote.
>
> Kurt
So, this means there's 101 DDs that don't have a GPG key in the keyring?
Wow, that's a big amount. Do we have an idea of how long these DDs are
in that state? Why are they still DDs?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
#x27;t think we need to rush. Even if this vote was
postponed until January, it's my view that it would be fine (but I
understand others who think differently).
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
c (ie: slowly replacing sysv-rc init
scripts by declarative runscripts) without loosing anything. Benda, why
don't you do that?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/OpenRC/supervise-daemon
Hi Sam,
On 12/2/19 6:12 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand writes:
>
> Thomas> Sam,
>
> Thomas> Is this a real life case (if so, please name the
> Thomas> package...), or just a pure fictional one, just beca
>
> What does proposal D say about this?
> Is the package RC buggy under proposal D until this patch is applied?
> Does the maintainer have the option to retain the enhanced
> functionality?
Sam,
Is this a real life case (if so, please name the package...), or just a
pure ficti
on-systemd systems, are appropriate for Debian communication fora;
>likewise references to bugs which are not relevant to the topic at
>hand.
>
>Communications on Debian fora on these matters should all be
>encouraging and pleasant, even when discussing technical probl
I think we should focus on making
> sure any decisions make sense for them, or deciding that we're not willing
> to continue to support them. That means focusing on init script support.
Or getting rid of sysv-rc in the favor of OpenRC.
Thomas
ths, to develop their implementation. (The same goes for any
>future enhancements.)
>
> with
>
>[...] The
>transition should be as smooth as possible for all users including
>those of alternative init systems.
I agree with Holger that it's probably better to leave the amount of
time undefined, and see what happens on a case by case basis.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand
a timely fashion anyways.
We all have $day-job stuff to care, and Ian probably also needs time to
think of ways to write things. A week or 2 wont change anything, and
probably not the outcome. However, better wording and greater ideas could.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
ut
> responsibilities.
>
> It sounds like Ian is planning on making a few changes, so I'll hold off
> on formally seconding it until there's a new draft.
>
+1
I find Ian's draft (after all the in-progress rework) very good, and
would probably second the final proposal.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
I hereby nominate myself for the 2019 DPL election.
>
> -Jonathan
Sorry to just do a +1, but thanks.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 04/06/2017 06:10 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> Even more, from my experience, the availability of an HCL (ie: Hardware
>> Compatibility List) is mandatory for some vendors to choose Debian. At
>> $work, I've been
me, it doesn't bother the other DDs,
then we're fine.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
eir website. To avoid
trademark issues, this logo *must* be different from the standard Debian
logo.
Note that I am convince the FSF initiative (I can't remember the ugly
website name, sorry...) is *not* a correct response to this need. We
need our own thing.
If one was to start such initiative, I'd be happy to help.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
ference here?
Well, actually...
To all: what do you think you can do to make the PPA thing happen?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Arc
atches we need in the original sources, we
deal with such a non-cooperative upstream and do what's needed on the
packaging side. That's not the first time, and it wont be the last, and
it's not even specific to systemd.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.d
e also decide that it's not going to delay the
release. And since it's the release team who has the decision power, I
can only see it happening the correct way.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
would be money
wisely spent)
Lucas, what is your take on this?
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5323fc3b.2080...@debian.org
Yes, by all means we should ignore the fake personas, Mr. Natural Linux,
whoever you are.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Natural Linux wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs, Why should we believe you or the bullshit excuses given
> in the article?
>
> The fact is, last year none of this crap was needed.
>
On 01/28/2014 11:44 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> Option D
>>
>> * Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available.
>> - architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch
>> whenever OpenRC has bee
ripts saying that they want to stop supporting it.
Charles,
Have you even TRIED OpenRC? There's no need to change any Essential flag
in any Debian package to make it more easy to install...
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "
ss on the new
OpenRC project on Alioth and will do the work by himself).
3/ Conclusion
So, all together, I think it's reasonable to say that *we do* have
OpenRC support on all platforms, and that it's only a mater of closing a
few RC bugs with attached patches (so, nothing blocking).
Hopi
On 03/26/2013 09:28 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> I see
> Zack's DPL helpers initiative as a step in this direction, and I'd like
> to take it a little further.
How? Make it formal? Have new "official" positions? Or just push more
people to help and that's it (whi
Hi all,
One of the key role of the DPL is to delegate.
What are your intention in this regard? Do you think that the current
teams and roles are well filled? Or would you like to change some of the
people currently holding a position? Why (not) changing anything?
Cheers,
Thomas
P.S: I have
On 03/21/2013 02:02 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 11:52 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> I think the outcome of moving a package that falls in the "requires
>> external stuff" from main to contrib would rarely qualify as silly.
>>
>> Take for example t
gin in contrib? And to make sure you
wont dismiss my point and answer that it has support for XMPP wich is an
open protocol: and what if it had only support for the non-free
protocols, like only MSN, AIM, Yahoo and such, and zero support for the
open protocols like IRC and XMPP?
Thomas
--
To UNS
should be important
for the project. Thanks a lot for this question to the candidates.
Best regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5142da02.3070...@debian.org
with sponsors
- sponsors wont get flooded with packages they don't care about
- sponsors will not miss software they do care about
Of course, this is only an idea that I'm throwing, and I'm not raising
hand for the implementation, but at the same time, the ones who have
worked on tags and
On 03/15/2012 10:10 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:11:28PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/12/2012 04:04 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:28:53AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>&g
On 03/12/2012 04:04 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 03:28:53AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If you see projects like Openstack or oVirt (sorry for the examples
>> taken from my area of expertise...), they have elections every 6 month
he DPL could do more than just
procedural things. Like what?
Cheers,
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5ed9a5.5090...@debian.org
On 03/13/2012 12:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> we could
> put a note in the release notes or in the installation manual
Do you *seriously* think that this would help? :)
> and/or put something on the website
We have this on our from page already (eg: the Donations link).
Thomas
about this in a
better English than mine...).
What are the improvements in this area that our 2012 candidates foresee?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.deb
actions could
be done to improve the current situation, which if I'm not mistaking,
isn't great this year?
Cheers,
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f5cfa1a.8060...@debian.org
Hi,
"search[ing] for talent and passion" is a great goal, but just writing
"The key to my goal is communication" isn't enough for me. So, how will
you do?
Cheers,
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:35:21AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 22:36:18 +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Anyway, here's what I got:
> >
> > :
> > 70.103.162.29_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_550_no_vote_is_currently_ru
7;m happy to be
pointed to additional documentation. Thanks in advance.)
Anyway, here's what I got:
:
70.103.162.29_does_not_like_recipient./Remote_host_said:_550_no_vote_is_currently_running/Giving_up_on_70.103.162.29./
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lis
can be distributed by them under
the DFSG. Especially since your proposal is all about making copyright
information harder to locate, you are making things far harder.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
k there is nothing unclear about it. We have a perfectly clear
firm promise, and we have some people who do not want a firm clear
promise, and are willing to pretend that the social contract doesn't say
"100% free software".
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
ement of a
goal. But such an amendment has not yet been passed, and your clear
declaration that you are not willing abide by the social contract as
written is troubling.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
t it, then no resolution is necessary.
You seem to say an inconsistent thing: that they do prohibit it, and we
can avoid that prohibition by calling it a "practical consensus" instead
of an "override". Surely, however, it is the effect that matters, and
not the label you giv
ase is near that we must again
have special exceptions. I hope I can be proved wrong.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
n't, then there is nothing we could do that
would work.
If *nothing* would work, is it your position that we should ignore the
DFSG problem here forever?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
problems in firmware blobs", more or less. It was a carefully worded
option, and it won; it is a mistake to substitute for it something like
"release Lenny no matter what", and then to proceed to ignore the clear
statement of the winning option that *only* firmware blobs get the
sp
ne. I thought that was the
deal last time, but it turns out that "just this once" is repeated in
Debian about as often as copyright extension bills in the US Congress.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ian, we had enough of this
> already.
>
It is true that the project wants to release. It is not true that the
project wants to release on just any terms whatsoever.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
of the DFSG,
you're saying that such a resolution only requires a simple majority?
You seem to be saying that what is determinative is the resolution
proposer's statement. I find this implausible in the extreme. The
Secretary is at least an official who we can hope will be neutral; the
resolutio
1 - 100 of 1054 matches
Mail list logo
